.png.3b3332cc2256ad0edbc2fe9404feeef0.png)
mazeltov
-
Posts
851 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Downloads
Posts posted by mazeltov
-
-
Surachai, 25, was a close associate of the late "Seh Daeng," Major-General Khattiya Sawasdipol.
...
Surachai reportedly told police he was a close aide to Major-General Khattiya for many years and served as a trainer in the "King Taksin warriors" for eight years.
Is he really just 25 years old? Looks very young to me for a close associate for many years and a trainer for eight years.
Any more details on the King Taksin warriors? Have they something to do with the "King Taksin Operation", a strategic plan of protesters to lay a siege on the government office, the parliament building, the airport, TV & radio stations, the stock exchange and the Finance Ministry and several other business spot in capital, all at the same time.
-
You seem to be forgetting the other four hundred people who were picked up, imprisoned and not charged - perhaps by now they have been- can somebody clarify? And while your at it- do the authorities require even a court issued warrant to pick some one up under the S of E?
If your going to come up with numbers and comments like that Blaze then you should be prepared to show by links where they came from.
If you cant then it makes you sound like one of the red supporters who will twist anything out of context to try for some silly political point.
However back to the topic and seeing as you have a lot of info perhaps you could answer my question.
What of the human rights of the reds victims?
List in Thai of 417 being held around the country under the SOE
There are 8 youth included in the list. They are currently being detained in juvenile detention centers. How will they be treated under the Emergency Decree?
This is just a list of those held by the police what about individuals being held by actors other than the police, including the Army and the Border Patrol Police?
Summary of Detentions By Police Region
1. Bangkok Metropolitan Region 221 people
2. Region 1 40 people
2.1. Pathumthani Province 14 people
2.2. Samut Prakan Province 8 people
2.3. Ayutthaya Province 18 people
3. Region 2 [none]
4. Region 3 29 people
4.1 Ubol Ratchathani Province 29 people
5. Region 4 105 people
5.1. Khon Kaen Province 6 people
5.2. Mukdahan Province 19 people
5.3. Udon Thani Province 80 people
6. Region 5 20 people
6.1. Chiang Mai Province 5 people
6.2. Chiang Rai Province 10 people
6.3. Nan Province 5 people
7. Region 6 [none]
8. Region 7 2 people
8.1. Nakhon Pathom 2 people
9. Region 8, Region 9 [none]
Any fool can make up numbers. When will you red shirts get desperate enough to try honesty.
Answer NEVER
That is a official list by the Thai police. Only fools would declare it to red propaganda.
the pdf file is hosted by http://www.saranitet.police.go.th
-
none were closed... move on
The AoT made the decision to close the airport, not the PAD. Are you saying that if airport authorities in any of the incidents listed above had decided to close the airport in the face of a protest, that the charges against the protesters would somehow be terrorism instead of trespassing? I don't think you have thought through your position.
Can you tell me if that 'we didn't close the airport' is a official yellow defence line by their lawyers or is it just some stupid argument taken from some yellow propaganda fan page?
Nice to see you're back, Mazeltov. Short holiday, or were you suspended for awhile? As usual your comment has no direct relation with the quoted text. Maybe you cut and pasted the wrong part?
My question has no relation to the quoted text? From the quote: "The AoT made the decision to close the airport, not the PAD. "
I heard that so often that the PAD cannot be charged for the airport closure because it was a decision by the AoT and so on and so on. And i am not asking for the first time if that argument is really part of the PAD legal defence or if this is just a layman version by the fanbois.
Would be nice if somebody had a link to it.
-
Indeed, the main question is in my opinion, whether or not a law can have retroactive power.
In most countries, this question has been the focal point of many law studies, not only in criminal law, but mostly. And most lawyers agree that a law can be applied retroactively IF it is in favor of the defendant. (lex mitior).
Also most studies agree that a law cannot be applied retroactively if it is harsher to the defendant.
It would be interesting to have the opinion of a Thai lawyer on this subject. I will ask my colleagues and get back to this post.
Indeed. Aside from arbitrary law enforcement, now the spectre of retrospective law enforcement looms over Thailand.
A terrible precedent (in Thailand's legal situation) not to set.
Not unique. Nuremburg and more recently Saddam Hussein
No precedent in Thai law either as it is code based and not english common law based so any decisonj a judge makes today can be made differently tomorrow based on the merits of the specific case.
We don't need to look at Nuremburg or Saddam Hussein, but can look much closer at a similar issue. TRT and the 2 others. The ban of party executives from politics as the part of the party dissolution.
Case Study: Constititional Court Ruling. Decision No. 3-5/2550 (2007)
May 30, 2007. The Constitution Tribunal issued an order to dissolve the Thai Rak Thai Party, the Pattana Chart Thai Party and the Pandin Thai Party as well as to suspend the electoral rights of 111 executive members of the Thai Rak Thai Party, 19 executive members of the Pattana Chart Thai Party, 3 executive members of Pandin Thai Party, for a period of five years, effective on the date of the order of party dissolution.
Apllied law: Announcement No. 27 (Section 3) by the Council for Democratic Reform dated 30 September B.E. 2549 (2006) It stated that "3. Should the Constitutional Court or any other organ acting on behalf of the Constitutional Court give the order to dissolve any political party for committing an act prohibited by the Organic Law on Political Parties B.E. 2541 (1998), the electoral rights of the Executive Board of such political party shall be revoked for a 5-year period as from the issuance of such order."
Panikabutara Coorey, Pornsakol --- "The evolution of the rule of law in Thailand: The Thai constitutions" [2008], University of New South Wales Faculty of Law Research Series:
10. Arguable interpretation of the retrospective principle in the area of electoral lawWhen considering the doctrine in the context of criminal law, it cannot be denied that the formal legality of the rule of law which requires law to be prospective has theoretically and practically gained a strong momentum. The above examples clearly indicate that the Court is ready to strike out any unpredictable law. However, when the doctrine is applied in the context of electoral law, the interpretation of such doctrine may not render a clear result as it does in the criminal case. It is concerned that the formal legality on the prospective law may not be appropriately interpreted in the case where the Thai Rak Thai Party of Prime Minister Thaksin Shinawatra was ordered to be dissolved and the members were revoked the political rights by the Constitutional Tribunal.[68]The decision for the dissolution of the Party was relied on the Declaration of the Council for Democratic Reform (No.27) (“the Declaration”) which was the applicable law before the 2006 interim constitution was promulgated.[69] Harsh criticism of the decision is inevitable since the Tribunal based its decision on the Declaration which was approved by the coup. The primary concern of such criticism is whether the Declaration could render the retrospective effect on the corrupted political activities which had been committed before the military coup has taken control of the country.According to section 3 of the Declaration, the executive member of the disbanded political party is prohibited from engaging in any electoral activity for 5 years.[70] By dissolving the Thai Rak Thai Party, the Tribunal therefore revoked the electoral rights of the Party’s executive members. The Party was banned on the ground that two senior members had hired small political parties to artificially run in the general election on 2 April 2006 in order for Thai Rak Thai Party to win the election.[71] However, the hiring was committed before the Declaration became effective and if the Declaration was applicable to the case, is this the example of the violation of the rule of law?In answering “no” to the question, six out of nine judges of the Constitutional Tribunal agree that the revocation of the electoral rights is not a criminal penalty. It was only a legal measure derived from the effect of law which entitles the dissolution of a political party engaging in prohibited acts under the Organic Act on Political Parties (1998).[72] By deeming that such revocation is not a penalty, the retroactive effect can take place without interfering the rule of law. It is further affirmed by the majority of the judges that the rule of law as against the retroactive legislation could be tainted only when the retroactive legislation renders the criminal punishment to the respondent.The opponent of the decision argue that even though the revocation of the electoral rights is a criminal penalty, the fact that such revocation renders a retroactive effect has proved that the law is not prospective.[73] Whether the decision is sensible in the eye of the rule of law scholars depends on how the principle of retroactive law can be interpreted. Even though the decision leaves some room for controversy especially for those who lost their political rights, it is admitted that the existence of the retrospective law principle in the Thai constitutions is secured at a satisfactory level. This is particularly true for those laws which contain the criminal penalty because the Court of Justice has never failed to overthrow such retroactive legislations.[74]Borwornsak Uwanno*: Economic Crisis and Political Crisis in Thailand: Past and Present, 2009, National Taiwan University Law Review:
The Constitutional Tribunal applied the CDRAnnouncement No. 27 Article 3 to revoke the electoral rights of theexecutives of the dissolved parties for 5 years, even though the saidAnnouncement was issued after the commission of the acts which weregrounds for those parties’ dissolution. The Tribunal reasoned that“theprinciple prohibiting retroactive enforcement of law that will cause adverseeffect on individuals emanates from the ‘no punishment without law’principle; however, such principle applies only to criminal acts” and that“the revocation of electoral rights is not a criminal sanction but it is a legalmeasure which resulted from the laws empowering such parties”dissolution.”27 The Announcement could therefore be applied retroactively(ex post facto). Three Supreme Court judges disagreed. The decision todissolve the TRT and other parties was thus supported by six out of ninejudges-Announcement by the Council for Democratic Reform No. 27: http://www.ect.go.th/english/files/laws/announcement27.pdf
-Summary of the Decision of the Constitutional Tribunal (Unofficial Translation) http://www.constitutionalcourt.or.th/download/news/Party1.pdf
-
Well I'm confused K. Rucharee.
You say the Economist is highly credible, so I'll therefore assume that you read the magazine regulalrly.
However you also say that your local village doesn't have stock of the Wall Street Journal.
Doesn't seem to be logical, so perhaps you could clear this up.
Ever heard of subscription?
plus FYI: The Economist is a newspaper not a magazine. How comes that you don't know that when you pretend to know The Economist for decades?
Well if it's a newspaper, how come:
- I've bought a magazine called the Economist for many years (typical magazine size, , production style etc., as Time, Newsweek etc.)
- A quick Google search shows the cover of the current issue of the Economist magazine.
:facedesk:
The Economist call itself a newspaper, never a magazine and The Economist really like to insist that it is a newspaper and nothing else. Something a reader for many years should know. If you don't know you are probably not a real avid reader of The Economist, but only a pretender and big-mouth without any credibility. Calling The Economist a magazine = fail.
The Economist is a newspaper. Period.
-
1
-
-
Well I'm confused K. Rucharee.
You say the Economist is highly credible, so I'll therefore assume that you read the magazine regulalrly.
However you also say that your local village doesn't have stock of the Wall Street Journal.
Doesn't seem to be logical, so perhaps you could clear this up.
Ever heard of subscription?
plus FYI: The Economist is a newspaper not a magazine. How comes that you don't know that when you pretend to know The Economist for decades?
-
1
-
-
none were closed... move on
The AoT made the decision to close the airport, not the PAD. Are you saying that if airport authorities in any of the incidents listed above had decided to close the airport in the face of a protest, that the charges against the protesters would somehow be terrorism instead of trespassing? I don't think you have thought through your position.
Can you tell me if that 'we didn't close the airport' is a official yellow defence line by their lawyers or is it just some stupid argument taken from some yellow propaganda fan page?
-
ermm, civilians normally don't carry guns. someone who claims the opposite, 'armed civilians has the burden of proof. 'armed' means guilty, that needs evidence, a smoking gun, simple the fact that they were killed isn't evidence enough that they were culprits.
We have already seen lots of images of both armed with (bigger and smaller) guns aswell as clubs, knifes, slingshots, rocket-mortars, smoke-launchers etc etc.
If you want to make belief that none of these items can cause damage or injuries, that say so and I will be happy to prove you wrong.
ermm, in the entry you are quoting i also wrote:
"please keep in mind that the question if the red shirts or their black shirts were armed or not is a different issue and not point of the argument here. this is about the dead civilians, were they armed or unarmed and how they died."did you read it? did you try to follow my argument? i invested some time to clear your confusion. but if you keep focusing only on parts of my entries and ignoring the context, it will leads to nothing but waste of time.
So i asked for evidence that the dead civilians were armed. I saw many photos of unarmed red shirts and also went a few times to the rally site. lots of unarmed civilians were over there. Any yes i saw also images like the once that you describe.
but honestly that is not a proof that the dead civilians were armed.
According to Govt/CRES the soldiers were "instructed to fire at knee level in order to minimize injuries and deaths." and that there were terrorists, unidentified snipers targeting lives of innocent protesters, innocent people, EMS teams and the press.
So probably these unidentified people, like the once you saw on your images killed the civilians from that death list. you saw the pictures of the suspected killers, but that don't make their victims armed.
is that to confusing for you?
There are a couple of cases where i know, saw or read more details how these people got killed. unarmed people. The youtube video of the young man with the flag who got a head shot. In the moment Seh Daeng ws killed he didn't threaten anybody with a gun. the journalists were probably also not armed. same as the nurse and other para medics. the deaths from the Wat at the last day. the 10/14 years old boy at the road check point. the middle-age woman, a junk collector with an unknown name. Or the cases of were people got shot on their balconies, like Thai pop star Kampan Bazoo, his unarmed friend got killed. the air force sergant who got killed at a road check point, was in plain clothes, probably off duty, kinda a civilian too, an unarmed one.
in many cases we don't know who killed these people, except for the young boy and the air force sgt. both where evidently killed by trigger happy security forces.
So i ask again, do you have any concrete and detailed evidence that the killed civilians were armed?
And who killed them, because the claim that they were armed implied that the security forces fired the deadly shot, right?
And there are rules and regulations on the use of force and firearms against persons by law enforcement officials, an international law. the govt claimed all actions were according to these rules.
well, i saw a couple of videos that are most likely evidence that people, unarmed people, where shot at and under fire by government forces who actually didn't follow the rules of the use of firearms against persons by law enforcement officials. but i don't want this discuss right now.
-
Any updates on Interpol response to Thailand?
Or any reliable reports that thailand has even submitted the case to interpol?
Thye leave me hanging and then its off to pedophiles in Pattaya and Tuk Tuks in patong. Would be nice if the Thai press, AKA The Nation actually followed these stopries up
Or how fun spoiling nice it would be if the Thai press AKA The Nation explains that "will Interpol act?" is a silly question and the only answer is a 'NO.', everything else is nothing more than wishful thinking, a dream, an illusion that will never become true. Then you would not have to waste your time with the wait of any updates or spending energy in false hopes.
Look it took the government officials over one year to admit that they failed in all previous attempts to have Pol. Lt-Col. Thaksin placed on Interpol's wanted list and that Interpol rejected the demands because Interpol consider it to be politically motivated. Do you think this time they will be anyhow faster?
Anyway, nothing wrong with bumping up this topic from time to time. always good for a laugh.
edit: Thaksin's Royal Thai Police rank of lieutenant colonel added to his name. For teh lulz!
-
Check the front cover of the magazine highlighted on 2Bangkok.com today. Extremely provocative and as far from reconciliatory as you can get IMO.
you mean the front cover with a cartoon where somebody is chained to a bed? nothing to worry, a world-wide international standard and practice according to some ultra right-wing extremists.
You missed out the part of being raped.
Highly inflammatory and further proof (if more was needed) that peace is the last thing on the mind of the reds.
huh?
Peace???
I think being gunned down by the Abhisit government, being tortured and denied the basic human rights was indeed not in the mind of the reds.
Remember that over 80 people were killed and hundreds were wounded when Abhisit send out the troops? Did you read about the human right violations? That the barbaric act to chaining of wounded detainees could constitute an act of cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment, an act of torture. How that can be seen that peace is the mission of Abhisit?
And now the reds also dare to draw a cartoon. Extremely provocative? Highly inflammatory? Disgusting!
WAR IS PEACE
FREEDOM IS SLAVERY -
Excellent timing.
In an open letter AHRC director Basil Fernando said that AHRC and other concerned organisations and individuals have voiced outrage at the shackling and otherwise barbaric treatment of accused criminal prisoners in Thailand. (Their adjectives, not mine.) Basically the letter cites two examples of non - implicated citizens caught in the crossfire that have been accused of being terrorists. Despite there being no firm evidence that they were even protestors, they were interrogated while still under anaesthsia after surgery to remove bullets and then shackled to their beds.
Perhaps the Ambassador should immediately return to Thailand to investigate.
And people wonder why the UN has zero credibility with the taxpayers in the nations that provide most of the UN's budget.
An Open Letter to the Prime Minister of Thailand by the Asian Human Rights Commission (AHRC)
Dear Mr. AbhisitTHAILAND: Chaining of wounded detainees under Emergency DecreeThe Asian Human Rights Commission (AHRC) is writing to you regarding the treatment of detainees under the state of emergency that your government has imposed in Bangkok and other provinces of Thailand in response to protests that gripped the capital in recent months. (photo: Prime Minister Abhisit Vejjajiva , source:Prime Minister Media office)The AHRC has numerous grave concerns regarding circumstances of arrest and detention under the state of emergency imposed via the Emergency Decree BE 2548 (2005), which the AHRC strongly opposed from the time of its introduction under the government of your predecessor, Pol. Lt. Col. Thaksin Shinawatra.One of these concerns relates to the highly problematic provision that detainees under the decree not be held in official places of detention by virtue of their peculiar legal status as persons under custody but not charged with any offences. According to information currently available through various sources, among detainees being held in non-official detention facilities are persons who were wounded during the protests, who are being held in separate wards in medical facilities, and who are allegedly being chained to their beds....to continue to read the full statement go to: -
Taken from the Ministry of Foreign Affairs special page on the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.
-
Two Wrongs Don't Make A Right.
Wanna discuss another issue and violation of international law under UN Convention?
Basic Principles on the Use of Force and Firearms by Law Enforcement Officials
9. Law enforcement officials shall not use firearms against persons except in self-defence or defence of others against the imminent threat of death or serious injury, to prevent the perpetration of a particularly serious crime involving grave threat to life, to arrest a person presenting such a danger and resisting their authority, or to prevent his or her escape, and only when less extreme means are insufficient to achieve these objectives. In any event, intentional lethal use of firearms may only be made when strictly unavoidable in order to protect life....I read this the other way. Especially when you read the entire "Special Provisions" section. What the government did was totally in line with this provision and the following "Policing Unlawful Assemblies" section.
The first sentence of #9 clearly gives them the right to use firearms. How many army and civilians either died or were wounded in previous attacks by the reds? The precedent was set. Protection of the army, police and civilians was needed. Easy. Thanks, now we know they did this according to international standards! :jap:
:facedesk:
well, the human right lawyers, international press, European politicians see it in a very different way and condemn the action of the Thai government.
some ultra right-wing fanatics, political extremist, Nazi hippies and haters who don't care about human rights of others may applaud it.
That is even far away from the Thai government version of the events. The Thai government itself ("wisely") never admit and more or less denies that incidents like the 'use of firearms' described in the case above ever happened. because the government isn't totally stupid and knows that it would clearly not according to international standard.
-
Check the front cover of the magazine highlighted on 2Bangkok.com today. Extremely provocative and as far from reconciliatory as you can get IMO.
you mean the front cover with a cartoon where somebody is chained to a bed? nothing to worry, a world-wide international standard and practice according to some ultra right-wing extremists.
-
You produced a document, not in English that does not prove your claim. So don't blame others for being confused.
ermm, civilians normally don't carry guns. someone who claims the opposite, 'armed civilians has the burden of proof. 'armed' means guilty, that needs evidence, a smoking gun, simple the fact that they were killed isn't evidence enough that they were culprits.
few days ago i posted an article from The Nation that could be considered as a proof for unarmed dead civilians,a young boy, a poor woman,junk collector, anonym people with no name and no claimants for the bodies. sad story. they where definitely unarmed. but that got deleted as 'tasteless'. meanwhile a false claim, that no children were killed and only one woman, remained at the board, people taken these false claims for true and approved will end up in confusion when they know nothing about the facts.
anyway, i thought it is widely known that the governments claims and explains that most of the civilians where killed by terrorists.
and so i argued that the dead civilians were indeed unarmed innocents.
totally unknown to me are any detailed reports and proofs for the claims the killed civilians were armed.
and please keep in mind that the question if the red shirts or their black shirts were armed or not is a different issue and not point of the argument here. this is about the dead civilians, were they armed or unarmed and how they died.
okay, for a recap i bring a few quotes from declaration and explanation by government and CRES officials.
"Who Really Killed the Red Shirts ?"
The True Facts Regarding the 10 April 2010 Incident
On Saturday, 10 April 2010, the Centre for the Resolution of Emergency Situation (CRES), resolved to reclaim areas occupied by red shirt demonstrators. The incident resulted in violent clashes between the military and armed demonstrators ending with 842 injuries and 24 fatalities on both sides. Video footage gathered from numerous news agencies (domestic and international) covering the incident clearly shows thata group of armed terrorist militia from within the Red Shirt protesters instigated and provoked violence against the unarmed military. This group was heavily armed with high powered rifles and firearms, along with powerful explosives intent on targeting and firing on both the military and the demonstrators. The injuries and fatalities that resulted from the groups whose intention and actions can only be described as being premeditated terrorism with no regard for human life,public, or private property.Press Briefing by Royal Thai Army Deputy Staff Command and Director General of the Department of Special Investigation (15/5/10):
At the latest count, there are 16 deaths and around 140 injured. He noted that thesedeaths and injuries to civilians can occur from the following reasons.First, it is possiblethat Red Shirt guards could assault each otherdue to internal conflicts. Secondly, due to the assault weapons in possession of the Red Shirt guards, who are known to have M79 grenade launders, assault rifles, hand grenades, and giant firecrackers. Third, thegeneral public affected by the protests may have taken matters into their own hands and assaulted the Red Shirt demonstrators; there are eyewitness reports confirming this possibility. Fourth and finally, the firing of bullets are done under strict rules and instructions, to prevent further loss of life, or to target those who are clearly armed with weapons.Soldiers are instructed to fire at knee level in order to minimize injuries and deaths.Col Sansern also summarized the events of the past days, including an incident wherea local resident fired a weapon at the demonstratorsbecause he was angry that the tires being burnt would make the buildings in the area catch fire.Lt Gen Daopong concluded the briefing session by expressing the hope that the public now has a better understanding of what the Army is doing, and what the armed group inside the Red Shirt camp is doing. He stressed thatall soldiers have no intention of killing or harming anyone,but are only performing their duty, while always aware that the people involved are their fellow countrymen. The call by the Red Shirt leaders for the Army "to stop killing the people" is therefore a deliberate attempt to mislead the public that the Army views the people as its enemy.Press Briefing by CRES Spokesperson (2030 hrs 16/5/10):"
CRES wishes to state that the terrorists who are inside the demonstrations in Rajprasong area are creating incidents in order to confuse and mislead the public.This has been picked up by the media including the internet.The CRES needs to clarify and explain some of these incidents.First of all,the terrorists are causing incidents to create suspicion and misunderstand, by attacking the soldiers, the police, the public, and the press. All are targeted by the terrorists.I have to urge the public to stay away from Rajprasong, because it is very dangerous. If you need to enter this area because you live or work there, please tell the authorities so they can provide security to you.Our friends in the media also have to be careful. You should stay behind security lines. We can ensure your safety. ...The second one is a video clip. This clearly shows a red shirt protester firing an M79, which can cause death and injury to the public or security personnel. In this one instance, the camera captured an M79 being fired. Yesterday M79 grenades were fired at police quarters causing several injuries, including children.It is evident that the security forces have to take great precaution in dangerous areas.The third one is also a video clip. This shows a terrorist attempting to light the fuel tank of a truck. He’s then shot in the foot, and then runs away to his friends for help.This is also evidence that the security forces try to control their fire and shoot below the knee,and that they try to avoid causing serious injury to any unarmed protester."CRES Press conference 17 May 2010 at 2030 hrs
CRES expresses its concerns onthe terrorists infiltrating inside the protesting area, trying to endanger lives of innocent protesters, innocent people, EMS teams and the press.Reliable information received by CRES confirmed that today, there were 5-10 gunmen hiding inside the Chiva-Thai building , near Century Park Hotel, between floors 24-27.Thoseunidentified snipers will put both the military and innocent people’s lives in harm’s way, such as in the case of the singer, Kampan Basu, who was injured, possibly shot from the Chiva-Thai building.Therefore, the CRES would like the public to avoid entering or passing through the area for their own safely, especially during the night time.Apart from that, protesters were also attempting to destroy or damage public buildings and properties. We have also seen robberies of private businesses located in the Red Zone, which is the Ratchaprasong Intersection and its nearby roads.It is indeed difficult for the terrorists to deny responsibility in these incidents, which occurred in their protesting areas, since none of the state security personnel is allowed in the area....Slide 2.This is a picture of agunman dressed in black with an M16 in his hand. This is to prove thatthere is a group of gunmen using lethal weapons with the aim of harming innocent people, EMS teams, the press and security officers.Slide 3.The photo, taken 2-3 days ago, shows a military officer accompanied with a pistol who was trying to take back a military truck previously seized by the protesters.While being surrounded by protesters, he carried a gun, but he decided not to use it against the people and let himself be beaten and injured by the protesters. This is to show that all military personnel always strictly follow the rules of engagement as instructed by CRES....Some people are using the words“the military is killing the people”, to mislead the public. This is definitely not true. The military are tasked only to cordon off the protest area and set up blockades, but not to do harm the people.Deputy Staff Command press briefing 18 May 2010 at 2045 hrs
The security forces stationed around the protesting area have been , on daily basis, putting their lives in harm’s way. There are terrorists who are trying to do harm to those officers by using various types of weapons or dangerous materials against them, especially in areas like Bon Kai, Pratunam and Din Daeng which are the areas that attacks were mainly concentrated.Since 13 May, there were a total of 58 of M79 grenades which were launched onto security forces.The violent incidents occurred during the past 2-3 days around Ratchaprasong area, such as burning of rubber tires, arson, looting on government’s properties and private businesses , have proved the intention of UDD’s leaders to use armed terrorists against the protesters.Relief operations have been conducted, with food delivered to the local residents affected by the situation in various areas. Since the presence of military officers in the relief zone was deemed dangerous, and might complicate the situation at any time, authorities concerned will instead try using negotiation as a way to facilitate the relief operation and to deliver all basic necessities to the people in affected areas.Learning from the tragic incident on April 10, right now all security forces will always keep distance from the protesters, of at least 200 – 300 meters, which is considered a safe distance from the reach of M79 grenade launchers and some other weapons. Therefore, the security forces’ death toll and injuries are minimal.The civilians’ casualties and injuries during the past few days could have been caused by unidentified gunmen hiding behind self-made bunkers and on high buildings.There were also eyewitnesses, both protesters and press, on such incidents. Besides, among those who lost their lives or were injured, they should not always be seen as innocent victims, sincesome of them could also be terrorists who get shot by security forces---just that no weapons were found making them look like ordinary civilians....^note: here is a semi-confession that the security forces used deadly force, but they also admit that there is a lack of the smoking gun. the dead were unarmed.
Press Briefing for Diplomatic Corps 22 May
Deputy Prime Minister Suthep:Dear fellow Thai people, members of the diplomatic corps and the media. I would like to inform you that, during the Red Shirt protest, there were incidents that involvedterrorists using weapons to attack officials, rescue units, members of the press and innocent people. These incidents, which had led to many casualties and injuries,had been closely reported by international media. During this period, Red Shirt leaders had tried to launch a propaganda campaign to mislead that there were no terrorists and heavy weapons. However, the truth revealed itself in the end.PM TV program 23 May 2010:
Some 46 people lost their lives during this period. These losses, which included journalists and innocent people, the Prime Minister stressed,were unrelated to the protest area at Ratchaprasong but resulted from clashes with those who attacked the officers’ check points. The officers had to respond to protect the check points and defend themselves in accordance with the clearly stipulated rules of engagement. During that period, more than 100 M 79 grenades were fired at the check points but losses among the officers were minimised as they had dug away from the M 79 firing range.This notwithstanding,the armed groups continued to attack innocent people and other target groups such as foreign journalists, and emergency medical and health volunteers, to inflict losses as a way to pressure the Government.As images revealed, they also put a child on their bunkers made of tires as if to tell the officers that had any clashes occurred, the casualties would include children.MFA responds to media enquiries about Amsterdam & Peroff’s statement June 4, 2010
Regarding operations by security forces, the Royal Thai Government had given strict orders that all operations regarding the protests by the United Front for Democracy against Dictatorship (UDD) be undertaken in accordance with the seven-step rules of engagement in line with the principle of proportionality and international standards, including the United Nations Basic Principles on the Use of Firearms by Law Enforcement Officials.They were also subject to strict instruction on the use of live ammunition, namely: as warning shots, in self-defence and to prevent harm on the lives of members of the public.Based on evidence and video footage taken by the media during the clashes between the protesters and the security forces, it is clear that there werearmed elements infiltratingamong the demonstrators. These individuals – not bound by similar rules –had used lethal weapons, including automatic assault rifles and grenade launchers, with indiscriminate effect and utter disregard for human lives, leading to loss of lives and injuries among demonstrators, bystanders and security officers.Okay that is what the government claims.
I hope the quotes are enough for a recap and memory refresh. it isn't the complete time line and don't include everything. just a few sound bites for the memory and get the idea what i am talking about.
we all know that some argue and accusing the government of killing unarmed civilians, but the government in defense and as general explanation comes up with the theory that deaths caused by government troops are only minimal but the majority of the deaths were killed by terrorists. that is at the moment the official line. and because the death civilians were indeed mostly unarmed this is the only logical way to explained it from the govt position. blaming a third force, who came between between the armed soldiers and the unarmed protesters (and unarmed dead)infiltrating the red shirts. the so called terrorists, who killed people from all sides and also the red shirts.
don't forget that according to Abhisit the majority of the red shirts were ordinary citizens, and nothing more than innocent people demanding democracy.
there is another wild theory out with the intention to defend the government and blame the red shirts. according to this beliefs the vast majority of the dead civilians were armed and terrorists who died during battles with the government troops. but there is not much proof and evidence for it and such claims can only come from Abhisit apologists who have not much clue what their Abhisit is actually talking. And it is not my fault when there is some confusion because a government supporter don't recognise and don't know the government version and demands 'proof' for it.
so much for the government version. there is not much consensus that the dead civilians were all armed. the opposite opinion, 'unarmed civilians' isn't so far out of place. the question who killed them needs still lots of investigation.
and if anyone can refer to cases where it is evident that a killed civilian was armed and an imminent threat, please post it here.
-
It should also be noted that the article of the UN Human Rights Convention referenced by the AHRC refers to the shackling of prisoners in prison, not in hospitals. I could not find anything from the UN specifically addressing the issue of restraining prisoners in hospitals.
ahh, yes. these silly human right lawyers totally forgot that these two are not ordinary convicts who were found guilty by a court of law and sentence to a prison term. they are just detainees under some nazi act like the Emergency Decree and therefore don't have the human rights like 'normal' prisoners. and as long you don't keep them in another place that is different from a prison human rights are void and it is totally normal and world wide practice to put them on a chain like dogs.
their crime: they are accused of attending a political assembly of more than 5 person, which is illegal under the SoE.
Your peaceful assembly of your friends were BURNING A POLICE BUS IN FRONT OF THE LUMPANI POLICE STATION! For god sake.
Maybe you are thinking about the assembly of 5 or more peaceful terrorists.
Two Wrongs Don't Make A Right.
Wanna discuss another issue and violation of international law under UN Convention?
Basic Principles on the Use of Force and Firearms by Law Enforcement Officials
9. Law enforcement officials shall not use firearms against persons except in self-defence or defence of others against the imminent threat of death or serious injury, to prevent the perpetration of a particularly serious crime involving grave threat to life, to arrest a person presenting such a danger and resisting their authority, or to prevent his or her escape, and only when less extreme means are insufficient to achieve these objectives. In any event, intentional lethal use of firearms may only be made when strictly unavoidable in order to protect life....Policing unlawful assemblies12. As everyone is allowed to participate in lawful and peaceful assemblies, in accordance with the principles embodied in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, Governments and law enforcement agencies and officials shall recognize that force and firearms may be used only in accordance with principles 13 and 14.13. In the dispersal of assemblies that are unlawful but non-violent, law enforcement officials shall avoid the use of force or, where that is not practicable, shall restrict such force to the minimum extent necessary.14. In the dispersal of violent assemblies, law enforcement officials may use firearms only when less dangerous means are not practicable and only to the minimum extent necessary. Law enforcement officials shall not use firearms in such cases, except under the conditions stipulated in principle 9. -
nazi act
put them on a chain like dogs
colorful, yet inaccurate and exaggerated descriptions
pathetic Abhisit apologist should be ashamed.
well the human right dudes wrote:
"The government of Thailand should be further aware that under the UN Convention against Torture, to which it is a party, the chaining of wounded detainees could constitute an act of cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment that would place it in clear violation of its responsibilities under international law."
if human rights are your concern, you may be also interested to read what the AHRC thinks about the Emergency decree:
-
It should also be noted that the article of the UN Human Rights Convention referenced by the AHRC refers to the shackling of prisoners in prison, not in hospitals. I could not find anything from the UN specifically addressing the issue of restraining prisoners in hospitals.
ahh, yes. these silly human right lawyers totally forgot that these two are not ordinary convicts who were found guilty by a court of law and sentence to a prison term. they are just detainees under some nazi act like the Emergency Decree and therefore don't have the human rights like 'normal' prisoners. and as long you don't keep them in another place that is different from a prison human rights are void and it is totally normal and world wide practice to put them on a chain like dogs.
their crime: they are accused of attending a political assembly of more than 5 person, which is illegal under the SoE.
-
unarmed cilvilans, yes! and that according to nobody else but the Thai government.
the list of deaths
My Thai is a little bit rusty, but can you point out where it says 'unarmed innocent civilian' in that document?
as far as i know, there are no detailed reports of armed civilians who got killed by government troops. the government declared these dead people were probably killed by terrorists. terrorists kill innocent people, that makes them to terrorists.
According to the government the soldiers didn't shot to kill, but only at legs, causing non deadly wounds. If you have any sources were the government admit that they killed armed terrorists or armed civilians please come forward with it.
Your argument is that the government allegedly has claimed to have killed zero individuals, armed or non-armed, and the document that you linked, that wasn't a proof of anything, is therefor a proof that the people in the list was unarmed and innocent?
It all gets very confusing...
If you know better please share your information. if all these dead civilians were armed or the half of them or one third or ten or five, that would be a widely published fact or not? but there is no official claim, official statement that declares that these dead civilians were armed.
that they were armed, that would be the point that needs a proof.
to confusing for you?
-
[AHRC Open Letter] THAILAND: Chaining of wounded detainees under Emergency Decree
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
June 18, 2010
AHRC-OLT-005-2010
An Open Letter to the Prime Minister of Thailand by the Asian Human Rights Commission (AHRC)
Abhisit Vejjajiva
Prime Minister
c/o Government House
Pitsanulok Road, Dusit District
Bangkok 10300
THAILAND
Fax: +66 2 288 4000 ext. 4025
Tel: +66 2 288 4000
E-mail: [email protected] �or [email protected] �
Dear Mr. Abhisit
THAILAND: Chaining of wounded detainees under Emergency Decree
The Asian Human Rights Commission (AHRC) is writing to you regarding the treatment of detainees under the state of emergency that your government has imposed in Bangkok and other provinces of Thailand in response to protests that gripped the capital in recent months. (photo: Prime Minister Abhisit Vejjajiva , source:Prime Minister Media office)
The AHRC has numerous grave concerns regarding circumstances of arrest and detention under the state of emergency imposed via the Emergency Decree BE 2548 (2005), which the AHRC strongly opposed from the time of its introduction under the government of your predecessor, Pol. Lt. Col. Thaksin Shinawatra.
One of these concerns relates to the highly problematic provision that detainees under the decree not be held in official places of detention by virtue of their peculiar legal status as persons under custody but not charged with any offences. According to information currently available through various sources, among detainees being held in non-official detention facilities are persons who were wounded during the protests, who are being held in separate wards in medical facilities, and who are allegedly being chained to their beds.
Two cases reported in the media in recent days were of Mr. Jaran Loiphun (age 39) and Mr. Nattapon Thongkhun (age 20), of Bangkok, both of whom were shot during the military crackdown on the Ratchaprasong protest.
Nattapon was reportedly shot three times in front of the Lumpini Police Station on 14 May 2010. According to Nattapon, around noon on 14 May he and his friends were driving motorbikes from Petchburi Road to meet friends at Sathorn Road. When they reached the area in front of Lumpini Police Station, a group of protestors were burning a police bus on Wireless Road. When soldiers shot into the group of protestors, a shotgun blast went into his shoulder, and an M16 bullet went into his hand. He tried to get up to ask for help, but another shotgun blast hit his left leg. The protestors brought him to the Police Hospital. Nattapon explained that one day after that, as he was coming out of anaesthesia following surgery, police came to interrogate him. They accused him of violating the Emergency Decree. He was moved from a bed for ordinary people to a room for people facing accusations; there was another injured protestor in the room with him. He has since been shackled to his bed, guarded by police officers and allowed only short visits from family.
Jaran was reportedly shot twice at Pratunam intersection on 19 May 2010. The first shot was from a shotgun and was embedded in his left leg. The second bullet was from an M16 and went through his hand. According to Jaran, on the afternoon of 19 May, he was walking towards the area of Pratunam intersection. He saw a group of 4-5 soldiers walking about 20 metres in front of him. He was afraid and so he began to run away. But this group of soldiers shot at him. Jaran said that after he was hit by the shotgun he tried to get up and run again and the soldiers shot him with the M16. Jaran has also reportedly been shackled to the hospital bed, and he is being guarded by police officers.
For many years, the AHRC and other concerned organisations and individuals have voiced outrage at the shackling and otherwise barbaric treatment of accused criminal prisoners in Thailand. In the aftermath of the crackdown on the protests, there are also many reports of persons detained under the Emergency Decree in ambiguous and uncertain circumstances being similarly ill-treated.
As Thailand is now a member of the UN Human Rights Council, it should not be necessary for the AHRC to remind your government of its obligations under international law; however, in light of the many reports of the sort cited above in recent days, we draw your attention to the UN Standard Minimum Rules for the Treatment of Prisoners, under Rule 33 of which "chains or irons shall not be used as restraints" and other instruments of restraint shall be used only during a transfer of detainees as a precaution against escape, on medical grounds by order of a medical officer, or as a means to prevent self harm. Clearly, none of these circumstances apply in the cases described above.
The government of Thailand should be further aware that under the UN Convention against Torture, to which it is a party, the chaining of wounded detainees could constitute an act of cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment that would place it in clear violation of its responsibilities under international law.
Aside from being uncomfortable and humiliating for the persons in custody, this type of maltreatment engenders other types of abuse, and an attitude of contempt towards detainees among security personnel. In its most extreme form, it results in the handling of detainees as mere objects rather than human beings at all, leading to events such as the mass deaths in military trucks of persons in Narathiwat after the protests outside the Tak Bai Police Station of 2004. For this reason, all types of chaining and custodial maltreatment that are either explicitly endorsed through law or tacitly encouraged through routine practices are worthy of strong condemnation.
Accordingly, the Asian Human Rights Commission urges your government to ensure that all persons detained under the Emergency Decree are treated with human dignity and respect and specifically that wounded persons held under the decree are not chained or otherwise restrained while receiving treatment in hospital.
The AHRC also takes this opportunity to call for a full accounting of persons being held under the decree, for the prompt bringing of charges or release of all these persons, for all of these persons to be guaranteed their civil rights, including their rights of access to lawyers and family members, and to be guaranteed their rights to be free from torture and other forms of human rights abuse. Finally, we again call upon your government to lift the state of emergency without any further delay and return your country to the rule of law rather than rule by decree and the de facto military administration under which it has been placed in recent weeks.
Yours sincerely
Basil Fernando
Director
Asian Human Rights Commission, Hong Kong
Cc:
1. Mr. Chaowarat Chanweerakul, Minister of Interior, Thailand
2. Mr. Peeraphan Saleeratwipak, Minister of Justice, Thailand
3. Mr. Kasit Piromya, Minister of Foreign Affairs, Thailand
4. Homayoun Alizadeh, Regional Representative, OHCHR, Bangkok, Thailand
5. UN Working Group on Arbitrary Detention
6. UN Special Rapporteur on the question of torture
Posted on 2010-06-18
[AHRC Open Letter] THAILAND: Chaining of wounded detainees under Emergency Decree
-
unarmed cilvilans, yes! and that according to nobody else but the Thai government.
the list of deaths
My Thai is a little bit rusty, but can you point out where it says 'unarmed innocent civilian' in that document?
as far as i know, there are no detailed reports of armed civilians who got killed by government troops. the government declared these dead people were probably killed by terrorists. terrorists kill innocent people, that makes them to terrorists.
According to the government the soldiers didn't shot to kill, but only at legs, causing non deadly wounds. If you have any sources were the government admit that they killed armed terrorists or armed civilians please come forward with it.
-
BANGKOK: -- Anti-government red shirts seeking revenge are expected to instigate fresh turmoil in Bangkok and the provinces after the government lifts the emergency decree, security agency sources said yesterday.
These folks have no problem breaking laws, causing violence and terrorizing people but for some reason are scared to break the rules of the emergency decree?
a political assembly of more then 5 people would be a crime that allows the security forces to shot them down and arrest and chained the wounded like the the red shirts in this photo.
without the SoE the government could not do this legally. And without the SoE the reds could use their constitutional rights to protest without fear for life and health.
I think the chain is to keep them from running away, since they have been arrested. They also tie down people who are withdrawing from alcoholism, but in this case it's usually 2 or 4 limbs. I see the guy on the right has hurt his fingers.
Incredibly nice propaganda though.
I know, human rights issues are not one of the concerns of hypocritical Thaksin haters.
-
It was already ruled that the bike-traveling soldier wasn't killed by the soldiers at the checkpoint.
I guess you get it wrong and mix something up here. you are probably referring to the incident on April 28 near the old airport, right?
I am talking about a completely different case. It wasn't reported on thaivisa board and this forum should not be your only source of information. many people get the things totally wrong here and come to false conclusions just because they lack proper information.
-
If the military was not extremely selective about who was fired upon, there would have been thousands of dead in one day instead of less than 100 over several months. Any other government would have straightened them out weeks before and used as much force as needed.
well, trigger happy like they were they also killed their own. over 30 % of the soldiers who died in May are evidently killed by the security forces.
Over 30%? Source please.
http://www.ems.bangkok.go.th/report/totaldead7-6-53.pdf
death of soldiers in May:
May 13 พล.ต.ขัตติยะ สวัสดิผล Maj Gen Khattiya Sawasdipol alias Seh Daeng, shot in the head, apparently by a sniper, died on may 17 in the hospital.
May 17 จ่าอากาศเอกพงศ์ชลิต พิทยานนทกาญจน์ Air Force Sgt. Phongchalit Phipayanontakan, killed by army fire while he was approaching a security check point on a pick up truck. (khaosod.co.th ยิงดับทอ.ขับปิกอัพย่านสีลม-ผบ.รูดซิปปาก)
May 19 ส.อ.อนุสิทธิ์ จันทร์แสนคอ Lt Col Anusit Chansaento, i think he died in hospital from injuries probably caused by a Grenade and got his Lt Col rank after his death. there isn't much in the news about him.
3 members of the armed forces, that is the total number of the military, non-civilian, death in May. One of them was killed in somekind of a 'friendly fire' accident. That is one third, over 30%.
some argued that many soldiers died, so i thought it will be okay to operate with stats in percent.
any more questions?
Did Abhisit Text Himself Into More Trouble?
in Thailand News
Posted
The law is the the law and nobody can be above the law, you are right. That is Abhisits gospel.
PM Abhisit will sue you and you will get 6 month or one year jail term if you claim that Abhisit is unusual rich or if you dare to say that Abhisit had improperly behaved during an audience, he will bring you to the criminal court too.